If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

Shooting groups are reporting a growing number of cases where officers in armed response vehicles and helicopters are swooping on people who are legally shooting.
In many cases, the shooters are arrested and have had their guns seized. They are sometimes locked up and have their DNA taken, before police accept their error.
The Countryside Alliance has described as "hysterical", the "massive overreaction" by officers, while the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) has warned that an incident could lead to a lawful shooter being killed by police marksmen.
The problem has become so great, that the field sports' bible, Shooting Times, has launched an initiative â called the Campaign for Common Sense â to urge police to improve their dealings with field sports enthusiasts. The publication has also submitted a dossier detailing its complaints and proposals to a recent consultation by the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) on police firearm use.
The magazine's news editor, Selena Masson, said: "The police response is completely out of sync with what is actually going on. They send helicopters and up to half a dozen police vehicles, at astronomical cost to the taxpayer. They manhandle shooters, throw them in the cells and take DNA fingerprints, despite the fact that these people have permission and all the relevant documentation."
Christopher Graffius, from the BASC, said: "It doesn't take a lot of imagination to imagine a scene where armed police are called out going horribly wrong. The shooters' lives are at risk. I don't think many police forces have developed procedures to deal with this issue. They need to do so."
He said in his wildfowling club, in the north west, that Merseyside Police had sent an armed response unit in a helicopter in pursuit of wildfowlers on a tidal marsh up to a mile from land, who were shooting legally. The gunmen were forced back to land and interviewed by the police before being released.
In another case, earlier this month, Durham Police sent a helicopter to a spot near Bishop Auckland after a member of the public had reported seeing two men shooting geese at a lake. Instructions from the helicopter ordered the men to meet officers in a nearby village.
Two dead geese and the weapons were later seized from them, although officers later realised the pair had permission to shoot in the area and licences for the firearms.
In July, Kenneth Wilson, 63, and his brother Sid, 65, a former police firearms officer, had permission to shoot pigeon on farmland near Devizes, Wiltshire, when trespassers who were trying to view a crop circle called police to report a gun being used in the field.
A helicopter arrived, along with three squad cars carrying armed police, who arrested Kenneth Wilson. All charges against him were eventually dropped and his seized guns were returned.
He said: "The police dealt with this situation appallingly. It should have been resolved there and then in the field. There is nothing illegal about what I did that day. I have been shooting for more than 30 years and comply with firearms law and all safety practices. The way I was treated by the police was utterly humiliating."
In October, Graham Simmonds, a pest controller, was arrested despite notifying police in advance that he was intending to carry out a legal pigeon cull with an air gun at a shopping centre in Havant, Hampshire, in the early hours of the morning.
Simon Hart, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said: "Of course there are times when legitimate shooting might reasonably be confused with illegal shooting, especially at night, but there are many stories of unreasonable reaction to responsible shooting."
Richard Crompton, chief constable of Lincolnshire Police and lead for Rural Affairs for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: "Considering the popularity of shooting in the countryside, complaints of this nature are extremely rare. We have a very good relationship with the BASC but this issue has never been raised with us. I would be more than happy to discuss any concerns they have."

imported post

This being a site dedicated to open carry I have to admit that I dont think the situation in the UK is really suitable for open carry of firearms, I do however strongly believe we should be allowed carry of pepper spray which our regulations class alongside full auto machine guns, hand grenades and rocket launchers.

imported post

N6ATF, I read that and thought NO they wouldn't, then I read California and thought ah.

Different states interpreting in different ways. Britain is now unfortunatly in the EU and yet all other EU states allow ownership of pistols for sport. Britain are allowing a select few, around 25, which is discriminatory. It's a shame the rest of the world dont complain because British pistol shooters cant train for the Olympics. It will be a hollow victory for any medal winners because the best shots in the world are barred from competeing.

imported post

I've been a regular shooter since the late fifties, had a shotgun at a time when no permit was needed (pre 68 firearms act), served in HM forces, have a firearms certificate and do my bit as a range officer. One thing I have noticed in my many moons is that there are idiots out there, people who to put it plainly I would not trust with a pea-shooter let alone a loaded gun.

And yet during range officer duties have seen that with training a good percentage can be taught to act in a responsible manner, the big downer is that there is still a percentage that you would not want to stand next to on a firing point.

So would a blanket relaxation allowing all to carry work?

I have spoken to friends about the CCW exam taken by some Americans.One Brit who spends a lot of time over theretold me hispractical test consisted of emptying a mag into a man sized target at a couple of yards, end of test (he's also a target shooting member of my clubso his 2" group sort of took the examiner by surprise).

imported post

One thing I dont think they have in America is our pub culture. Large groups of twenty somethings out for what they percieve to be a good time. Getting pished on a friday or saterday nightin the town/city center.All too often the groups clash when young males try to show off etc. Occasionaly these drunken street brawls result in a knifing. What would happen if you put guns into their melee? A libertarian view is that you should not interfere with these juvenile rites and stop them drinking.

It's been 64 years since the last permitted firearms for self defence in the UK, America has an unbroken history of firearms possesion, so I think full unfettered introduction would be a catastrophy.

A middle way, perhaps join a club and establish a clean shooting record for a year. What I am trying to say is some serious training not just pass a simple test. Perhaps limited to over thirties who would hopefully have a more mature attitude. Obviously no criminal record for violence, drink or drugs.

imported post

Smokeless Coal wrote:

One thing I dont think they have in America is our pub culture. Large groups of twenty somethings out for what they percieve to be a good time. Getting pished on a friday or saterday nightin the town/city center. All too often the groups clash when young males try to show off etc. Occasionaly these drunken street brawls result in a knifing.

[/quote]

Oh, we certainly have that culture here, as well! It may not be as common or as widespread, but it's definitely here. In fact, we had a stabbing at a downtown bar around 2 am just a few days ago.

What would happen if you put guns into their melee? A libertarian view is that you should not interfere with these juvenile rites and stop them drinking.

It's been 64 years since the last permitted firearms for self defence in the UK, America has an unbroken history of firearms possesion, so I think full unfettered introduction would be a catastrophy.

A middle way, perhaps join a club and establish a clean shooting record for a year. What I am trying to say is some serious training not just pass a simple test. Perhaps limited to over thirties who would hopefully have a more mature attitude. Obviously no criminal record for violence, drink or drugs.

Here in America, some states have laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm in bars, but nearly all of them prohibit the possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

I agree that unfettered introduction would be bad. You could certainly allow them for home defense for a few years before moving on to allow either open or concealed carry, subject to a background check and issuance of a permit, and with simple restrictions, such as the prohibition of carry into any establishment which serves alcohol or the possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The legal aspects are easy.

Your largest challenge, by far, will be changing the deeply ingrained anti-gun abhorrence which will result in mothers grabbing their children in fear the first time they see someone other than a soldier walking down the street with a gun in a hip holster. Furthermore, the relative freedom from fear of being shot at is something UK law enforcement has enjoyed for decades! That's not a bad thing, and will be a major hurdle in passing any carry laws in the UK.

imported post

Training is not the question either, although I have lots of it - it is about the natural right to self-defense. The truth of the matter is that is it - nothing is more relevant, more important.

Yata hey

In 1991, in WA, a CWP cost me $27 for three years. I was fingerprinted and an FBI background check was performed. That's $9/yr, and no training was required. Our armed crime rate statistics were among the lowest in the nation.

This morning I applied here in CO and it cost me $152.50, yet the procedures were identical. At least it's good for five years instead of three. That's $30.50/yr. Our armed crime rate statistics are fairly low.

Various online inflation calculators tell me $9 in 1991 is worth about $15.44 today. So why does it cost double that, instead?

Somebody's raking in the bucks!

As for training, while on active duty in 1995, complete with semi-annual training in two weapons, M-9 and M-16, the State of North Carolina wanted $100 per year for a CWP and another $100 to attend a mandatory training course which was arguably far worse than the military training I received.

That was a legalized rip-off, and North Carolina, particularly Fayetteville, had, and still has, fairly high armed crime rate stats.

I'm very glad that the State of Colorado's program, while somewhat pricey compared to that of the state of Washington's twenty years ago, is reasonable, and I'm also glad they recognize the outstanding periodic firearms training received by our fine soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, particularly the fact that there is a strong emphasis on safety.

imported post

since9 wrote:

Your largest challenge, by far, will be changing the deeply ingrained anti-gun abhorrence which will result in mothers grabbing their children in fear the first time they see someone other than a soldier walking down the street with a gun in a hip holster. Furthermore, the relative freedom from fear of being shot at is something UK law enforcement has enjoyed for decades! That's not a bad thing, and will be a major hurdle in passing any carry laws in the UK.

Whaaat?

Where are all those screaming women? I OC daily and have not seen one yet.

And where pray tell have you ever seen such a reaction? The fear and screaming over a legally carried gun, quietly resting in a holster - too many movies.

UK law enforcement is so badly outgunned by the BGs that they have started carrying full auto and moving around in squad size groups - where have you been?

The only thing that will truly work is to allow all legal citizens to carry whenever and where ever the chose

Remember the reasons for our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Yata hey

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

A group of police officers are under investigation for allegedly stealing money from a dead man / AAP Source: AAP

Investigation into stolen cash claim

Watchdog is looking at another 200 cases

Three officers under investigation still working

A GROUP of Queensland police officers is being investigated over the alleged theft of $20 from a crash victim's wallet.

The victim's mother said she was sorry to hear about the alleged theft but urged the police service to "forget about it and move on".

"Police are very underpaid. This officer probably has a few kids and was facing a lot of bills," she said.

When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

imported post

in re: police overreaction

What your police do is of course rediculous. But I believe it is at least in part that old problem, the cop swagger.

Have you ever noticed they way the move down the street? Lips pressed into a harsh line, stern chin, eagle eyes alert for jaywalkers. Ordinary people cringing before their terrible presence. God, how they love it. If the job carried no salary many of them would pay for the privilege. I suspect this is even more true in the rarefied atmosphere of the armed response units.

Every one of them knows in his heart that he is Marshal Dillon, meeting danger with a grim fatalism.

My (thankfully) brief experience in England tells me that your police are the worst in the civilized world. Even France is more tolerable.

As to the treatment of recreational shooters, does the phrase "shabby intimidation" ring a bell?

imported post

old dog wrote:

in re: police overreaction

What your police do is of course rediculous. But I believe it is at least in part that old problem, the cop swagger.

Have you ever noticed they way the move down the street? Lips pressed into a harsh line, stern chin, eagle eyes alert for jaywalkers. Ordinary people cringing before their terrible presence. God, how they love it. If the job carried no salary many of them would pay for the privilege. I suspect this is even more true in the rarefied atmosphere of the armed response units.

Every one of them knows in his heart that he is Marshal Dillon, meeting danger with a grim fatalism.

My (thankfully) brief experience in England tells me that your police are the worst in the civilized world. Even France is more tolerable.

As to the treatment of recreational shooters, does the phrase "shabby intimidation" ring a bell?

That's a prime example of the "us vs them" mentality.

The elitists (royals and landed gentry) hired game keepers to protect their sport and meat. The common people were expected to survive on the leavings, bread, potatoes and ultimately in some places were told to eat cake.

Now today the elite still have the protection that the gun affords, but the common people do not. Ah yes, but anybody that wants a cell phone can get one.

Yata hey

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

imported post

Margaret Thatcher, in a 1998 speech to the National Institute for
Public Policy in Washington, DC:

"It is a fact, too -- although a curious one -- that the sale of small
arms to gun enthusiasts or sportsmen produces a greater sense of moral
outrage in Western society, than is produced by the sale to psychotic
despots of weaponry capable of killing thousands.

[line]
"A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the autocrat,
not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of
the man who holds it."

imported post

More simply put the privately owned firearm, whether in the hands of a hunter or nonhunter, represents an independence of spirit that is anathema to the loathsome, useless drones that make up nearly all governments and view office as a license to steal.

My own beloved country may finally be waking up. The November elections should tell the tale.

If I may paraphrase the greatest Englishman: It won't be the end. It won't be the beginning of the end. But it may perhaps be the end of the beginning.

imported post

old dog wrote:

in re: police overreaction

What your police do is of course rediculous. But I believe it is at least in part that old problem, the cop swagger.

Have you ever noticed they way the move down the street? Lips pressed into a harsh line, stern chin, eagle eyes alert for jaywalkers. Ordinary people cringing before their terrible presence. God, how they love it. If the job carried no salary many of them would pay for the privilege. I suspect this is even more true in the rarefied atmosphere of the armed response units.

Every one of them knows in his heart that he is Marshal Dillon, meeting danger with a grim fatalism.

My (thankfully) brief experience in England tells me that your police are the worst in the civilized world. Even France is more tolerable.

As to the treatment of recreational shooters, does the phrase "shabby intimidation" ring a bell?

I agree that most US cops do have the robo-cop mentality.

But i disagree about the brtish cops being worse. My time in the UK (most the Scottish borders area) the Police were VERY polite and helpful.

I even saw four men beating the hell out of each other outside of a pub and the police even treated them with respect.

I cant speak for London, Glasgow or other large metro UK police though.

If the UK adopt the Swiss gun ownership way, I will move there in a second.
In Switzerland the laws are much like that in Vermont or West Virginia.
You dont even need to go through a FFL to sell a person a handgun.

This being a site dedicated to open carry I have to admit that I dont think the situation in the UK is really suitable for open carry of firearms, I do however strongly believe we should be allowed carry of pepper spray which our regulations class alongside full auto machine guns, hand grenades and rocket launchers.

We should have a damn sight more than that! Pepper spray is good but it's far from perfect.
At the very least trauma pistols on CCW (which Russia has started doing for its citizens) and handguns back onto section one of the FAC.

What your police do is of course rediculous. But I believe it is at least in part that old problem, the cop swagger.

Have you ever noticed they way the move down the street? Lips pressed into a harsh line, stern chin, eagle eyes alert for jaywalkers. Ordinary people cringing before their terrible presence. God, how they love it. If the job carried no salary many of them would pay for the privilege. I suspect this is even more true in the rarefied atmosphere of the armed response units.

Every one of them knows in his heart that he is Marshal Dillon, meeting danger with a grim fatalism.

My (thankfully) brief experience in England tells me that your police are the worst in the civilized world. Even France is more tolerable.

As to the treatment of recreational shooters, does the phrase "shabby intimidation" ring a bell?

That's a fact my friend. The cops in the UK are not what they were in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. A new generation is emerging and I don't like the look of it.

Where are all those screaming women? I OC daily and have not seen one yet.

I was being facetious. I OC daily, as well, including to places like IHOP on Saturday mornings (lots of families) and McDonald's, and there's nary a reaction there, either. Or at WalMart, for that matter, except by a former LEO who works in the back.

The only thing that will truly work is to allow all legal citizens to carry whenever and where ever the chose.